rel="nofollow" href="#fb3_img_img_83f5a006-fd32-5a4b-b1b6-acb6153559f4.jpg" alt="entity"/>) in the west, both rising steeply from the Mediterranean coast to inland with peaks exceeding 3000 m. To the northeast lie Milyas and Kibyratis, with the Elmalı plain in the central plateau at an altitude of 1100 m. These mountain ranges and river valleys created natural boundaries within the region itself and played a significant role in the local rulers' (dynasts/aas) control of their local communities, in the service of the Achaemenid king. The region's rugged terrain, however, did not obstruct its communication with the outside world. The local rulers left their mark on the archeological record most visibly through heroa and sarcophagi that reflected their competitive political and social identities in the display of monumentality and themes used in relief sculpture, e.g. the pillar tomb known as the Harpy Monument and the temple tombs, the Nereid Monument in Xanthos, the Gölbaşı‐Trysa Heroon, the Heroon of Perikle in Limyra, and the Payawa sarcophagus. People in Lycia also commissioned rock‐cut tombs of varying size and decorations, presumably based on their affordability. A recent study documents the rock‐cut tombs in the territory of Limyra and demonstrates that they were predominantly produced during the first half of the fourth century BCE (Kuban 2012). The local mint coinage bearing the names of local rulers accompanied by portraits – and subsequently their disappearance later in the fourth century, probably due to the Hekatomnids' rise to power in the regional administration – as well as inscriptions, including a multilingual in Greek, Aramaic, and Lycian on public display at Xanthos (Metzger 1979; Briant 2001: pp. 17–19), reflect the shifting dynamics in the region quite well.
The urban development in Xanthos during the Achaemenid period showed two different zones: the Lycian acropolis, densely occupied, with monuments and palatial structures, and the fortified city itself with buildings scattered in the empty space. A large elaborate structure in the southeast had a long occupation history, the first phase of which dated back to the seventh century BCE (des Courtils 2008: pp. 1634–1641, 1651; Marksteiner 2005: pp. 38–40).
Regional surveys have documented walls of watch towers and garrisons in strategic points widespread in the region, one for example at Köybaşı, comparable to those at Meydancıkkale in Cilicia and Herakleia/Latmos in Karia (Marksteiner 2005: pp. 30, 37).
Lycia provides representations of city landscapes in relief sculpture, showing hilly terrains with pillar sarcophagi on terraces surrounded by fortresses and towers (Jacobs 1987: pp. 61–64; Childs 1978: pp. 10–16). Like the freestanding heroa at vantage points in the Lycian territory, commanding views of the area were chosen also for the tumuli with painted chambers on the Elmalı plain at Milyas. The largest settlement mound Hacımusalar Höyük/Choma is located nearby. The communities of Milyas lived in a contact zone of Lycia, Kibyra, Pisidia, and Phrygia together, and this seems to have found its reflections in the material culture, as illustrated by the painted tombs at Kızılbel tomb, dated to c. 525 BCE and at Karaburun dated to the 470s BCE (Mellink 1978; Mellink et al. 1998). The episodes of banqueting, military victory, funerary rites, and the realia in the paintings of the Karaburun chamber can be viewed as visual expressions of social identity, status, and prestige of the elite under Achaemenid hegemony. The phialai represented on the paintings find their counterparts in silver in the burials of the Achaemenid period (e.g. Uşak‐Güre tumuli), as well as in bronze from the Phrygian milieu as demonstrated by the nearby tumuli at Bayındır on the Elmalı plain (Özgen and Öztürk 1996: p. 26). We are again reminded of the Phrygian past by the use of wood for the construction of the painted chamber of the Tatarlı tumulus near Dinar (Mellink et al. 1998: pp. 55–56; Summerer 2007; von Kienlin 2010: pp. 116–119; critical to the Achaemenid impact Jacobs 2014).
The architectural remains at Latmos display well‐built fortification walls with 14 towers that enclosed a fort inside, dating from the first quarter of the fourth century BCE (Peschlow‐Bindokat 1989). Another survey on the Karian landscape documented 48 sites with fortifications, about a half indicating strongholds, and a quarter with presumably palatial structures including the foundations of a large building at Halikarnassos attributed to Maussollos (Carstens 2011). Halikarnassos, the home site of Maussolleion, the most well‐known structure of the Hekatomnid era, has been explored by a Danish team since the mid‐1960s (cf. Jeppesen and Lutrell 1986: pp. 13–113 for the testimonies of classical sources). The sanctuary of Zeus at Labraunda, with its immaculate andrones passibly used for ritual banquets, also might have functioned for palatial purposes, as audience halls by the Hekatomnids (Hellström 1991, 1996. Cf. recent work by Henry 2012; Henry et al. 2016). Used as acroteria, the sphinxes excavated in the sanctuary reflect the west Anatolian version of Achaemenid types (Gunter 1995: pp. 21–29). Like Lycia, the chamber tombs and rock‐cut tombs in Karia mostly date from the fourth century BCE. The rock‐cut tomb at Berber İni/Mylasa and the unfinished monumental tomb at Uzunyuva/Mylasa are exemplary in connecting the center of the empire and the local dynasts conceptually (Henry 2010; Rumscheid 2010).
Cilicia and the Southeast/Middle Euphrates
In the mountainous Cilician terrain, on a rugged hilltop between Silifke and Anamur, is Meydancıkkale, ancient Kiršu. The name is mentioned in two Achaemenid period Aramaic inscriptions at the site (Davesne and Laroche‐Traunecker 1998; Casabonne 2004: pp. 151–165). Ruled by the family of Appuašu under Achaemenid control, Kiršu was a strongly protected local residential fort that could patrol the coast and the mountain zone, and manage the exploitation of timber resources. Some of the reused blocks, associated with a large structure, display reliefs reminiscent of the gift bearers represented in the reliefs of Persepolis. Images on Cilician coins issued predominantly between c. 450 and 375 BCE reflect the complex sociopolitical connections in the region.
Kinet Höyük near Issus plain was a fortified settlement during the fourth century BCE. A large mudbrick structure dated to c. 400 BCE bears similar features to those at Oylum Höyük near KiIlis and Hacınebi at the Birecik Dam area (Gates 2005: pp. 61–62).
Excavations of the earlier levels of Dülükbaba Tepesi by the sanctuary of the Roman god Jupiter Dolichenus, 10 km from Gaziantep, revealed that the hilltop of the site was already in use as a sanctuary earlier during the Iron Age (Schachner 2011). An Achaemenid‐type bull capital of basalt, found in a fill, has been associated with a large structure that served as a main building in the sanctuary. This area also yielded rich finds consisting of seals and jewelry in Neo‐Babylonian and Achaemenid styles.
The cemeteries at Tilbes and Hacınebi at the Birecik Dam area on the Euphrates, which yielded seals, jewelry, and pottery, appear to be contemporary to the Devehüyük cemetery (Gil Fuensanta and Crivelli 2010; McMahon 1996; Moorey 1980). The settlements at Tilbes, Surtepe, and Hacınebi show no sign of destruction in the beginning of Achaemenid rule, nor after their demise, suggesting relatively smooth transitions to alternative hegemonic establishments. Excavations in these settlements revealed significantly large structures that were in use during the Achaemenid period. The structure at Surtepe, with mudbrick walls preserved up to 3 m in parts, finds its nearby counterpart excavated at Mezra Teleilat, located 7 km to the south of Birecik (comparable architecture also at Tille: Blaylock 2009). It is an impressive building with magazines and storage units that had access to a large courtyard in the middle (S¸enyurt 2006). Fragments of tablets in late Neo‐Babylonian cuneiform were found on the floor. This mudbrick structure appears to have served as a regional residence and a warehouse where revenues were stored and presumably distributed in the middle Euphrates area.
REFERENCES
1 Akurgal, E. (1961). Die Kunst Anatoliens. Berlin: de Gruyter.
2 Ateşlier, S. (2001). Observations on an early classical building of the satrapal period at Daskyleion. In T. Bakır, H. Sancisi‐Weerdenburg, G. Gürtekin, P. Briant, W.F.M. Henkelman (eds.), Achaemenid Anatolia, Pihans 92. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 147–168.
3 Bakır, T. (2001). Die Satrapie in Daskyleion. In T. Bakir, H. Sancisi‐Weerdenburg, G. Gürtekin, P. Briant, W.F.M. Henkelman (eds.), Achaemenid Anatolia, Pihans 92. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 169–180.
4 Baughan, E. (2008). Lale Tepe: a late Lydian tumulus near Sardis.